Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Archive/2010/4

User:MisterWiki

I was looking at the contestants for the Wikicup and I noticed that MisterWiki has been banned for 10 years. Can someone do something about that, like remove his panel or something? GamerPro64 (talk) 04:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Hurr, will do. ;)  GARDEN  09:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll remove him from the other lists. J Milburn (talk) 11:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Adding another method to get points

Wait, wait, hold off the angry mobs for now. This is just a small suggestion, which you are free to take or reject as you please. I am sure by now many of you have seen the big BLP dramarama. One thing that has already begun as a result of this is a dive into Category:Unreferenced BLPs to see what could be salvaged. While writing FAs, GAs, and DYKs is highly important, I would venture to say that cleaning up that category (along with Category:BLP articles lacking sources) is one of the highest priorities for The Community right now. If there was a way for WikiCup-ers to submit a sourcing of an article for points, I would say that it would certainly help out the giant backlog some. So, what do you guys think? NW (Talk) 20:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• I think the problem is twofold. One is simply the weighting of one area of the project more than another. That could probably be overcome for the reasons you outline. The bigger issue, however, is that Wikicup scoring is based upon measurable, reviewed content. If you got, say, half a point per source, what's to stop adding mediocre sources to lots of articles that adds little help? Or referencing the same fact 3 times. Judges can't be responsible for the hundreds of references that would flow. Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Scoring#Unreferenced BLPs —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 20:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Odds are, most of those articles are stubs. If you source them you should expand them, and they can be DYKs. Reywas92^Talk 21:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
      • Absolutely. Weighting points for different articles has already been rejected, and the issue of unreferenced BLPs is much more administrative than the other things for which we award points- equally, it's somewhat negative. Rather than "this article is now good", it turns it into "this article is no longer shit". It's really not in the current spirit of the Cup. There is also the fact that mid-competition rule changes are probably a bad idea. J Milburn (talk) 23:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Mention on the strategy wiki

Hey, users here may be interested in this, which was pointed out to me by Piotrus. Only a brief mention, but it's an interesting one, for people keen on the "bigger picture" and such. J Milburn (talk) 01:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

regretful withdrawal

I won't have the time to contribute enough to be competitive in early 2010, so it's best to bow out now.

This doesn't mean you won't see my contributions of course, they just won't be in this year's cup results.

Best of luck to everyone and hopefully I'll have enough time to compete again next year. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Very well, I have removed you from the contestants lists and faded your name from the poster. Feel free to remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send, but you're welcome to stay on it if interested. It'll only be monthly. Hope to see you next year. J Milburn (talk) 02:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope I have time to participate in some of the reviews later in the year. I don't know who said it first, but every article wants to be a featured article. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Created a template for WikiCup submissions

Since I'm extremely lazy and had a few seconds available, I whipped up the {{cupnom}} template. It's used to add new submissions to your submissions page. It should make it easier to read the submissions code if you ever need to find a specific article in your submissions page. Also, instead of having to either copy and paste all that text from the submissions instructions or type it all out manually, you just type out the following to add a new submission:

# {{cupnom|OpenFeint|DYK|339496870}}

Generating:

1. OpenFeint [1] [2]

This template is used for submissions to the WikiCup.

Code	Description
FAC	Featured article candidate
FLC	Featured list candidate
GAN	Good article nomination
DYK	Did you know
ITN	In the news
FPOC	Featured portal candidate
FPC	Featured picture candidate
FSC	Featured sound candidate
VPC	Valued picture candidate

To use it:

# {{cupnom|Article|code|oldid|subpage number}}

• Article: Article, portal, picture, or sound title
• code: The "code" for the process; refer to the table to the right.
• oldid: The "oldid" of the revision containing your edit.
• subpage number: This is the subpage number for the FAC/FLC/GAN review. This field can remain empty if it's just "1".

Examples:

Process	Code	Result
FAC	# {{cupnom|Example|FAC}}	1. Example Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Example/archive1 [3]
FLC	# {{cupnom|Example|FLC|2}}	1. Example Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Example/archive2 [4]
GAN	# {{cupnom|Example|GAN|1234567890|3}}	1. Example [5] Talk:Example/GA3 [6]
DYK	# {{cupnom|Example|DYK|1234567890}}	1. Example [7] [8]
ITN	# {{cupnom|Example|ITN|1234567890}}	1. Example [9] [10]
FPOC	# {{cupnom|Example|FPOC}}	1. Example Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Example [11]
FPC	# {{cupnom|Example|FPC}}	1. Example Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Example
FSC	# {{cupnom|Example|FSC}}	1. Example Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/Example
VPC	# {{cupnom|Example|VPC}}	1. Example Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates/Example

As an example, I'm using it on my own submissions page. The template won't actually benefit myself that much since I usually have few submissions, but it might be helpful to those who produce more content than me. Gary King (talk) 18:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• Quite nice for DYKs, thanks! Hafta still work out FA/FP/FL/etc tho, since those require including a nomination. Maybe add an additional optional 3rd variable for the FAC/FLC/FPC location which is only inserted if used? Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay it's better now. I've updated the instructions above and on the documentation page. Gary King (talk) 20:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oh... That still isn't going to work for a whole host of things. FLCs have /archive1 on the end, for example. I more meant that you could input, say, Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Houston Astros first-round draft picks/archive1 along with the article itself and it would pump out both lists. Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

You can just use the third parameter, then, for numbers like "1", "2", etc. Gary King (talk) 21:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Potential problem with progressing the top 64

If the 64 editors progressing to the next level had to be chosen today, how would it be done? There are 45 users with 20 or more points, but 67 editors with 10 or more points. On Feb 26, unless the number of points happens to exactly break at editor 64, there will have to be some sort of tiebreaker. I suggest:

1. Request that editors withdraw until 64 remain (might be the easiest and fairest, especially if it wouldn't take very many withdrawals)
2. Page views of the articles submitted for the Cup during their best day in 2010 (good for DYKs)
3. Mainspace edit count Abductive (reasoning) 21:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I was discussing this very problem with my wife two days ago. She thought one way would be to cut it chronologically. The first 64 to score would go through. I took a look, and if I'm not mistaken, I was the 65th person to get on the board. So that would be a bummer. I'm also last alphabetically, so I'm not a fan of that method either. I would vote for mainspace edit count, but I'm biased. I brought up this potential problem awhile back at Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Archive/2010/3#A_what_if, but it didn't get resolved there. Useight (talk) 22:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I have been considering this. Mainspace edits was something I'd thought about, but I also like withdrawal requests and chronological promotion (however, I would have it as the first however many more were needed to reach the tied number, so, if we had n people on x points competing for y places, it would be the first y of the n to reach x points). I am hoping there will be no need for any sort of tie-breaker. We will have two days to resolve the issue, should it finish early. Page views and alphabetical are two ideas I do not like. Hopefully, when people realise they are close to be knocked out, there will be a rush of last minute submissions, and the higher the count, the less likely a draw. Does anyone else have any thoughts? J Milburn (talk) 23:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Useight, you wouldn't happen to have a heart of steel, would you? NW (Talk) 23:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

If you're asking if I control that account, the answer is no. If you're asking if my wife controls that account, the answer is no. I've been unsuccessful at getting my wife to create an account. If you're asking if I actually have a heart of steel, then possibly -- it's been claimed that I have a black soul. Useight (talk) 00:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

It was just a small joke based on how that editor often will tell a story before coming to his (quite well-thought out) point.[12][13] Don't worry about it :) NW (Talk) 02:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, gotcha. Yeah, sometimes I do that. Useight (talk) 17:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the end counts will likely be better. I don't like the idea of chronological promotion.

What about?

4. Valuing helping out in DYK/GA/FA review

5. Word count of all content contributed for the Cup

6. Just promoting more than 64 Abductive (reasoning) 01:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

What's wrong with chronological promotion? Seems like a more appropriate version of sudden death. Your first suggestion is a good idea, but there is the problem that I suspect the majority of people will not have done so. The second is a little odd, and not the easiest thing to judge- remember many people are submitting articles that they have merely added to, rather than written completely. The final option would be difficult- remember that we will be sorting people into groups for round two. J Milburn (talk) 01:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I've completely written my only DYK. SM U-118. I'm sure that Im not the only one either.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 01:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

No, you're definitely not the only one. I submitted 1925 Rochester Jeffersons season for DYK after creating and expanding it. I made 65 of the first 67 edits to the page (5 edits have been made to it after it made the main page). Useight (talk) 01:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, a lot of people are completely writing their entries. However, a key problem with this- how to deal with non-articles? Topics? Pictures? Sounds? Portals? No, I don't think that idea is appropriate. J Milburn (talk) 01:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Page views was just a suggestion, and would only work if the tie being broken was between people with 2 or 3 DYKs. But that is likely; right now everybody with 20 or 10 points got them only from DYKs. I don't like chronological promotion because it has no element of quality. Abductive (reasoning) 01:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

It's hard to see how we could, other than reducing it to "her article is better than his". J Milburn (talk) 01:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I don;t like page views at all. Mine got only a handfull (I think) of views due to the fact that it was at the bottom of the template. I think that asking people to drop out is the best option.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 01:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that asking for people to drop out is best. Let's hope the breakpoint requires very few to drop. Abductive (reasoning) 02:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

There are 50 users with at least 20 pts and 7 of them with exactly 20; about 21 have 10 pts. I think 30 pts will guarantee a spot and 20 will be the minimum by the end of the round. Nergaal (talk) 03:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

If not enough drop out, how about a more positive version of sudden death? Let's say editors 61-70 score 20 points. 70 initially go through, and six pools temporarily have nine users. Once four of those last ten score, the other six are removed. If this creates unequal groups, the four who were in the sudden death situation are the four who are shifted if appropriate. WFCforLife (talk) 08:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Not sure about that; I'd rather we started the next round knowing what's what. Further, I'm not wild about people racing for points like that, and shifting the groups... No. I'm still not really seeing the reason for the opposition to the variant of chronological I proposed, which seems to be more tied to the competition itself, both in spirit and practice. I think the only one with no opposition at the moment is mainspace edits. J Milburn (talk) 10:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll assent to mainspace edits as a tiebreaker. You'll note I have few mainspace edits this year, but I expect to be above the 30 points I already have anyway. Abductive (reasoning) 20:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

For those who don't know, there is Wikipedia:WikiBowl Silver so some people may voluntarily withdraw to compete there. JB50000 (talk) 06:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

FP/FS bot trickery

Luckily FPs and FSes are each worth 35 points, so swapping the points doesn't disrupt things, but the bot continues to misfile my FP. I've now tried swapping the headers of the two sections (so I have my FP listed where FSes were and vice versa) to try and trick the bot into filing them correctly. Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• It worked, the bot updated properly!! Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
  • How odd. I'm afraid I have no idea how the bot works- perhaps I should switch the headings of the columns? J Milburn (talk) 01:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

• Meh, I think this is fine. If people submit them, just switch the headers at your talk page. Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Problem with GT points

My points have not been credited yet for a GT (with 7 articles) that I've listed in my submissions page. Is there a problem with the bot? — Hunter Kahn 03:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Probably. The bot has not done well with FT/GTs. Have you formatted as it is listed on the submissions page? I really need to get to bed- I will look into this as soon as I can. J Milburn (talk) 03:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• I believe my formatting is correct, but if it's wrong, please tell me how and I'll correct it. — Hunter Kahn 19:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I've double checked and my formatting is correct. — Hunter Kahn 14:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
    • It still hasn't gotten my FT after about 3 or 4 weeks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
      • I'm sorry. I will contact X!. J Milburn (talk) 18:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

FAs

I just learned over at the FAC page that the only FAs which count for the WikiCup this year as those which have been worked on during 2010. I'm a bit concerned about this rule. That basically excludes anyone who does research for a living and then writes Wikipedia articles about that research, or, in fact, anyone who has spent a lot of time reading about a specific topic (precisely the people you want writing FAs). To give a hypothetical example. Several years ago I did a bunch of research on Thomas Day. I haven't bothered to write up the article yet, but if I did so in 2010, it shouldn't count for the WikiCup because the bulk of the work (the researching) was done years ago. I understand why the rule was made, but it seems difficult and perhaps detrimental to enforce. Awadewit (talk) 21:19, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

From my understanding, the "work" involves on Wiki work, not the researching and resources gathering. If you haven't written the article yet, then you'll have to do work to incorporate those sources and improve the article. Si yes, it would counts towards WikiCup. Now if you had actually written the article but hadn't bothered posting it yet and just had it sitting completed offline somewhere, then it wouldn't count if it were discovered. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• Yeah, the "work" is only the Wikipedia work. Learning about a subject is one thing, the physical writing of the article is what that rule is concerned with, intended to stop people from sandboxing a dozen articles in November and December and releasing them during the Cup. Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• The above explanations are accurate. As long as there's some real work on the article in 2010 (beyond merely copyediting or some such) then it's fine. Writing an article based on earlier research would be completely legitimate. J Milburn (talk) 23:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• I think my point is being missed. You're not really stopping people from "sandboxing a dozen articles" because the bulk of the work related to any FA is the research, not the writing. So, a really smart WikiCup competitor would have done all of the research in 2009 and would now simply write and nominate continuously. Awadewit (talk) 02:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• The actual writing of the article is no mean feat- remember that FAs were originally called "brilliant prose". It takes time, effort and considerable ability. There is no denying that, in many cases, a lot of work (even the bulk of it) will have been done before the beginning of this year. As long as there is some work on it this year, I'm happy to award points. In any case, as has been said before, I don't think many people are so fussed that they will have intricate under-hand tactics like this. J Milburn (talk) 02:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• Considering I have somewhere around 30 FAs, I am aware how difficult it is to write them. By the way, I would like to point out that it is not necessarily underhanded to do the research ahead of time. Someone like myself, who researches for a living, has already done much of the research for many of his/her FAs and therefore, in many senses, is not a fair competitor (that is one reason I don't enter things like this). Anyway, I've raised the issue - do what you will with it. Awadewit (talk) 02:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• Awadewit, absolutely no one is calling your prior knowledge of the topic underhanded. Absolutely no one. And there are no provisions against prior knowledge or research because that would be impossible to enforce and would generally be crazy (telling editors not to edit on things they know?) Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• (ec)No, nothing underhand about your case; and so I would consider it perfectly legitimate. I would have no problem with someone writing an article on a topic they had previously researched and then claiming the points, and even deliberately pre-reading is not a bad thing, by any means. I don't think this is an issue we need to worry about, but thank you for your thoughts. J Milburn (talk) 02:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I have a userspace draft that I intended to start working on again during this WikiCup, but the draft is over a year old (at least). Does that disqualify it, or does it depend on how much the article changes between now and when I submit it for GA and FA? One of the reasons I entered the WikiCup was to encourage myself to work on such drafts, so it would be a bit of a pain if drafts started before 2010 were disqualified. Carcharoth (talk) 20:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

As long as there's some real work this year, it's good. Your call on whether there is work- if you required motivation to do it, there probably is :) J Milburn (talk) 20:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I know this is in the middle of the competition

But at least from the next round, is it possible to give a bonus if the articles are from Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded? Say doubling the points? A few obvious reasons: there is no DYK possibility; it is much harder to get them to FA; the community benefits more as they are of more encyclopedic value (and usually have more regular visitors). Also, to exclude abuses, the article must have been on the list say at the beginning of 2010? Nergaal (talk) 10:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

No. This was discussed and rejected. As you know, changing the goal-posts mid-round is also a bad idea. We can discuss the issue again for next year. J Milburn (talk) 10:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget! JB50000 (talk) 06:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Discussed where? And I said next round, not in the middle of this. Nergaal (talk) 11:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Next round is still mid-competition. You'll have to check the archives of the scoring talk page to find where it was discussed. This is a fairly workable rule, I will give it that, so it it is something that may warrant discussion in the run up to next year's contest. J Milburn (talk) 11:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something, but why is there no DYK possibility on those articles? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you really think it's likely that one of them will be five times expanded? J Milburn (talk) 14:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

As several of them are stubs and others are non-existent, yes, quite likely. (example) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Alright, you're right. I didn't realise anything listed there was a stub. I assumed they would all be of reasonable quality. However, looking at that list, there's some weird shit going on- quite why there are so many racehorses is beyond me, and even if I was to stick to my areas of interest... Where's Thomas Hobbes? John Stuart Mill? Seems to be some pretty random choices on that list... J Milburn (talk) 15:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Wait. Stop. You're telling me that we should be awarding bonus points to some who expands Dance Dance Revolution or Everquest, but not to someone who expands Thomas Hobbes or Thus Spake Zarathustra? The list is terrible. Utterly terrible. I accept I don't work on the most academic of topics myself, but if we award bonus points, it will be for real subjects... J Milburn (talk) 15:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

100% seconded. I just removed a bunch of entries there,[14] but there is still a fundamental problem with the entire list when, for example, there are 50+ articles on food and drink and 12 on war and military. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 15:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, trust me you will not get any argument from me on that. The list seems very random and arbitrary in many ways. It looks like some intend it primarily to be for "definition" and basic articles on meanings - i.e. father, degree, addition, etc, while others have added in specific things that are not meanings, like specific cars, universities, programming languages, etc. I love that it has Ada but not database....and apparently only five novels are somehow more special than all the rest? Fun fun. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the racehorses and added the philosphers... I don't think I care enough to deal with the list as a whole. I loved the hidden comment on the racehorse section- "limit to 25?" It's really not awfully clear what purpose that list is trying to serve. A list of key concepts and biographies (along with places, historical events and the like) would be highly useful; but, as AnmaFinotera points out, we get the dreadfully important son, girl, chuck steak and Vodka Collins. There is also a rather large amount of pop culture and sports stuff- don't get me wrong, I think there's a place for that on the encyclopedia, but are Batgirl, Venom and The Flash really that important? Finally, the western bias is clear. For instance, we have lots of time for Judaism and Jews, despite the fact it is, all things considered, a rather minor religion. We have much less time for Eastern faiths, even the likes of Hinduism... J Milburn (talk) 16:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The Vital Expanded list has always been a dumping ground for articles that were rejected from WP:VITAL, as the latter should always be at exactly 1,000 articles and so each article addition needs to be discussed first, and an article needs to be selected to be removed. At most, articles from WP:CORE and WP:VITAL should receive bonus points, nothing more. But I don't think bonus points are needed anyway; I don't really think that it would spur people to work on articles that they wouldn't normally work on. And as always, those lists will always be quite subjective, so what one person considers important might not be the same as another's. Gary King (talk) 18:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd dispute that it will be workable next year. I've added people such as Michael Schumacher, Ayrton Senna, Diego Maradona and Ronaldo. How a list of the 250 most important sportspeople can be missing those is beyond me, and as far as I can tell that's representative of the entire expanded list. WFCforLife (talk) 10:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Breaks during WikiCup

Has there ever been discussion of how bad timing of holidays and wikibreaks might affect things? Or are people just expected to manage their time and do more in the time they are here, if they happen to be away for two weeks in one of the two-month periods (presuming, of course, that one is still in the competition when the two-month period in question arrives!)? Carcharoth (talk) 20:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Not really been discussed- I know at least one other participant takes regular wikibreaks, and, obviously, the majority of contestants have work, school, college, university, home life, hobbies, technology problems and such to deal with! I'm not really sure there's anything that can be done- if someone takes a lengthy break, they will naturally be at a disadvantage. J Milburn (talk) 20:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I REALLY don't want to have to do this, but I have to withdraw

When I signed up for the WikiCup, I thought that I was going to be able to get internet access on my computer before then (I'm on a relative's computer), but a month into the proceedings and I still do not have internet on my computer. As much as I hate doing this (I'll still edit Wikipedia, but I doubt I can do so on a timely basis like this since I'm sharing the computer), I must bow out and sign my withdrawal. I hope there's one in 2011 so I can come back at a better time. Hurricane Angel Saki (talk) 15:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Sad to see you go. There will almost certainly be another competition next year. I have removed you from lists and the poster, feel free to remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk) 17:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

CSA flag duplicate

I just noticed that for the flags poster of the Wikicup, you used the original CSA flag (aka the actual "Stars & Bars") twice. I have been using the 3rd CSA flag, which is why ACDixon was using the 1st one. Why the double use of the original CSA flag?--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 20:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Not seeing it on the poster, and when I searched on the flags list for ACDixon, I didn't find him. He's not on any of our contestestant lists. Could you perhaps be a little more specific? Who are the two people with the same flag? J Milburn (talk) 21:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Look at the flag 3 across, 2 down from the top left, and look at the flag 2 across and 7 down from the top right.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 22:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Yours is wrong then? Could you link to the image you intended to use? J Milburn (talk) 22:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Mine should be File:Confederate National Flag since Mar 4 1865.svg.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 22:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks for pointing that out. J Milburn (talk) 22:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Idea for next time

Please take a look at Wikipedia:FCDW/Reviewers and consider adding points for doing reviews at WP:FAC/WP:FAR, WP:FLC/WP:FLR, WP:GAN, and WP:PR next time. Reviewing content is part of building the encyclopedia too ;-) Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

This is something for which a lot of people have expressed support, and an idea I certainly think has value. This will definitely be discussed for next year. J Milburn (talk) 19:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

This would probably result in a lot of short, unhelpful reviews. Gary King (talk) 02:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Say 1k characters review minimum would be acceptable for judges to oversee it. Nergaal (talk) 05:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

People can still type a lot of nonsense in 1000 characters. Just look at WP:FAC. Gary King (talk) 18:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

(belatedly) - this has my strong support too. Reviewers are necessary for articles to be audited - I think the reward should be minor. My guess is 2 points per GA review, and 1 for FAC comments (?) - the idea is that the main points still come from writing but that one can get a few extra by reviewing - a bit like being a good goalkicker to convert tries or touchdowns in gridiron or rugby union/league :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I would be inclined to agree with this. Minor recognition for paticipation in reviewing processes (GAC, FAC, PR, possibly others) with the bulk of points still coming from actual editing. There is a little opposition to this, I gather, but I do feel the focus of the competition/its participants is shifting a little towards allowing this sort of thing, rather than awarding points purely for audited content. Discussion on the specifics will probably have to take place at the end of this year, as well as a discussion determining for sure whether Wikipedia/the competition will benefit from this addition. J Milburn (talk) 23:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

BLP reference contest

Hello, I spoke with the winner of the 2009 wikicup, Durova about a reference contest, and she suggested that I ask you folks. I am interested in seeing Wikipedia starting a unreferenced living people (BLP) sourcing contest, to help alleviate the 44,000 unreferenced BLPs, there is definitely an interest. Since the "BLP_madness" which started Jan 21, in just three weeks, 7,000 articles have been removed from the list. Okip (formerly Ikip) 16:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

This was mentioned on the scoring page a few days ago- there's not really any way we could fit it in to the current competition, but it is something that could be discussed for next year. A second competition could be a possibility, but it would need to be planned and then advertised... J Milburn (talk) 17:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the response. J Milburn, I see you have edited this talk page the most,[15] and IMatthew created this page.[16] would either of you be interested in forming a second competition? Okip (formerly Ikip) 17:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

What do you have in mind? J Milburn (talk) 17:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, hmm...thats the thing, the WikiCup has been going on since 2007, and I love the ingenious way it has evolved. Maybe something similar to the Wikicup? What are your thoughts? I have ideas, but you folks have all the experience in doing this, and I think it is best to have you and the other creators actively involved from the very start. So I am open to any thoughts that you have. I am willing to invest the time in creating this, I just need help :) Okip (formerly Ikip) 20:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The trickiest part is for the judges to actually count the useful edits. Here it is more like "other users agreed it is GA/FA/etc so we give you points". WP:MILHIST has some contests that also involve start=>B articles so in that sense they are more evolved. I would check with them also. Nergaal (talk) 22:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I am glad you brought that up, I noticed that also, and felt like that would be the most difficult aspect. There are not as many measurements for starting articles (unreferenced BLPs), as there are for advanced, older articles, (good article, featured article) which the WikiCup focuses on. Okip (formerly Ikip) 22:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I posted this:

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#New article contests that WP:MILHIST_has_done

Any more good ideas J Milburn? Thank you.Okip (formerly Ikip) 22:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow, the amount of work and effort that has been put into this project, for example, User_talk:Nergaal#WikiCup_2010_January_newsletter is inspiring and also overwhelming. This project is definitely a guiding star and barometer test for all future contests. Okip (formerly Ikip) 23:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Contest Inspired by:

• Wikipedia:WikiProject_LGBT_studies/Jumpaclass

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/World War I task force/Contest

Do you think adapting this is possible for a BLP contest? Any suggestions? Okip (formerly Ikip) 09:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The only way I could see a WikiCup-like contest being used in a BLP setting is if it was something as simple as "a point for every unreferenced BLP cleaned up". However, there would be real issues with subjectivity- what constitutes "cleaned up"? What about the short versus long issue? The advantage of the current system is that it is much more objective- the only issue we have is judging "significant work"- IE, judging whether people have done enough work on an article this year to claim points. J Milburn (talk) 11:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is the stub section from the table Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment#Quality_scale:

Class	Criteria	Formal process	Example
Stub	The article is either a very short article or a rough collection of information that will need much work to bring it to A-Class level. It is usually very short, but can be of any length if the material is irrelevant or incomprehensible.	May be assigned by any reviewer	Flank speed (as of January 2010)

Wikipedia:Stub#Ideal_stub_article

Referencing BLPs is not even getting an article to start level.

The only way I could see a WikiCup-like contest being used in a BLP setting is if it was something as simple as "a point for every unreferenced BLP cleaned up". However, there would be real issues with subjectivity- what constitutes "cleaned up"? What about the short versus long issue?

All material referenced with a reliable source, everything else removed, with a brief note on talk that the material has been deleted.

Maybe a point for each reference added?

Okip (formerly Ikip) 08:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Start: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Unreferenced_Biographies_of Living Persons#Unreferenced_living_person contest Okip (formerly Ikip) 08:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Tiebreak note

If my count is correct 60 users currently have at least 20 points. If 4 more folks write a DYK or something, the 10 point problem will be solved (though we may run into the same thing at 20 points). Staxringold _talk^contribs 23:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

You are right 60 with 20 or more points. 8 with 20 points and 16 with 10 points, a few will get additional 10 points. My suggestion would be that the oldest wikipedians are positively discriminated and advance to the next level, or that non native speakers have the bonus to advance ;-). In reality that question should have been solved before, because in the end somebody will be angry for being eliminated from the Wikicup. A most convenient method would be to take all the people who have exactly the same points as the 64th in the next round. Than one or two or three pool groups will be a little larger, but this would not do a big harm and we would not hurt the feelings of people.--Stone (talk) 09:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Let's have everyone on 10 into the next round with all those on zero eliminated. That way nobody's feelings are hurt and nobody is angry (those on zero have possibly forgotten, lost interest or have even left as it surely can't be that difficult to write a 1500 character DYK on any topic in 2 months?) --candle•wicke 20:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

No. The rules say we need 64 people. Not 70+ How about we ask for withdraws from people and if that's not enough, then we can have some sort of tie breaker. say if there are 69 people still remaining, then the bottom 6 go onto compete for the wildcard spot. Whoever scores frist can remain in the challange as the 64th person. This can take place before the next round begins and after this round ends. So they have about two days to write a DYK and get it to the main page.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 20:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

A DYK nomination will sit in the queue for longer than two days, so I don't think that would work all that well. Useight (talk) 21:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

As for the aforementioned "because in the end somebody will be angry for being eliminated", this is a possibility because no measures were implemented in advance should a tiebreaker be necessary. If one had been, then we could have pointed to the rule and said, "Well, that's the way the tie-breaking procedure was set up." But since we're just tossing together this procedure at the end of the round, there won't be a way to satisfy everyone unless the appropriate number of people withdraw voluntarily. Useight (talk) 21:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reward board

Was a reward for the winner ever discussed for this contest? Similar to Wikipedia:Reward board, if so where is the conversation? Okip (formerly Ikip) 09:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Last year, we developed and then awarded our own awards. They're purely symbolic- no real-world value. I believe the possibility of getting sponsorship was mentioned, but it didn't come to anything. J Milburn (talk) 10:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

thank you again J Milburn,

1. is there a page for prizes, and
2. where is the sign up page for this year? I can't find it at all.

Your help has been invaluable. Okip (formerly Ikip) 10:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

There is not a page for prizes. Last year, the judges clarified what would be awarded (we had first, second, third and fourth place, as well as a "top eight award", plus additional awards for various content types, and a banner for participation) in the last few weeks- the graphics were designed by Garden, while the discussions on what prizes were to be awarded for was conducted between iMatthew, Garden and I. The prizes were then awarded on talk pages, and may have been announced in the final newsletter- our top eight certainly were. The sign-up page for this year's competition can be found here, but the page has now been redirected to our contestant list, as signups have closed. We also had the reconfirmation list, as many people who originally signed up were less interested when it approached the beginning of the competition. Hope this answers your questions. J Milburn (talk) 20:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Tiebreaker Proposal for next year

Well, seing that the possibility of more than 64 editors has come up this year, I propose that next year, between each round, we allow all of those who did not drop out to enter into a tie breaker after every round. Here's how it goes, after every round there will be a 1 week tie breaker round where all the contestants that are tied for the last spot will compet for that position. Whoever scores the most by the end of the week will move on. If there is another tie, then whoever scored first will move on. Does that sound good?--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 21:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

• A week is practically no time, barely enough for a DYK to go through. If you are ready to write a DYK, just nominate it before a tiebreaker. Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Any better ideas then? Come on! There has to be something.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 22:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I suggested something above but received a No. --candle•wicke 22:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I asked about this a full month ago and got "dueling at dawn" so we may have to resort to that. Useight (talk) 22:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

• I suggest we all don some wrestling suits, and do a WikiCup Survivor Series tie-breaker... Scottaka UnitAnode 22:26, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
  • At the moment, I'm thinking the "requests for dropouts", which will probably fail, followed by a mainspace edit count (the more likely option) or judging chronologically (as in, the first people to reach the tied score) if we still have too many. I will have to discuss this with the other judges, but we're not managing to speak as much as we did before the start of the competition. I do not like the idea of a sub-competition (sudden death or something akin) and I don't think letting more people through to the second round would work, as it completely undermines the idea of groups. (Unless, of course, we allow eight more through, and have eight groups of nine...) J Milburn (talk) 22:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Ooh, had another thought. I would imagine we would be able to offer some preference towards those who, during the competition, have been taking part in PR, FXC, GAC, DYK and the like- the kind of background work on which this competition relies. J Milburn (talk) 23:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
      • Now that would be a good idea. There have been complaints, especially from the FAC department, that the Cup has spawned an untenable amount of articles being nominated. When combined with a declining number of reviewers... you can see the problem. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 00:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Bonus multiplier for Vital or Core articles

I was musing on this currently as I am working on coffee as well as various plant/bird/fungus articles. The work on some big articles I have worked on would be easily double or triple those of more esoteric articles on individual species. The nightmare of various secondary sources disagreeing with each other and having to sift through large amounts of material and rate reliability etc. as well as chopping up articles once they reach gigantic proportions and move large chunks of text to daughter articles - this has happened several times. Also having daughter articles with text that disagrees with amin article etc. etc.

Despite all this, I have found working on these monster articles a great experience on the whole, and representative of a real collaborative spirit. Anyway we can promote the improvement of 'core' articles would be a big benefit.

My gut feeling calculation is that a triple point bonus for GA or FA would be a fair reward, but that might look a bit unbalancing, so double might be more prudent. The next question is what list(s) represent 'core' articles. WP:Vital is an obvious anr (roughly) consensus-derived. I was musing on considering also, say, any Top Importance article as rated by any particular wikiproject, but would worry that could be gamed. Anyway, what do folks feel about this idea for next year? Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I like your ideas but how about adding more points for top and high rated articles?--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 00:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Completely disagree with the idea of Top or High rated articles- I don't care whether something is top importances in WikiProject Pornography or WikiProject Greenday, that does not make them important. The ridiculousness of our "vital" articles was expanded on above- the list is constantly changing, and at any given moment seems to contain a lot of rubbish, and miss a lot of important stuff. See the thread for more info. I do like think there is value, at its heart, of recognising genuinely high importance and encyclopedic material more than less important articles. However, I strongly feel that, as of right now, we lack an objective method that isn't severely flawed. J Milburn (talk) 00:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

How about most viewed articles?--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 00:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Then it gets slanted towards modern/recent articles... —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 00:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Let's consider your subject area, Coldplay Expert. Inglourious Basterds is such a vitally important article. Who gives a shit about rubbish like Nazi Germany? Wasn't that just one of the countries that featured in the film? There can't be that much to say, and it doesn't matter, so long as the main article on the film is good. J Milburn (talk) 00:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

It would only work if we kept it to really top-level articles, like History or Mathematics, and there's so few of those that this may not even come into play. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 00:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, but even then, finding an objective list would be hard. J Milburn (talk) 00:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

You got me there Milburn. For me it would be Nazi Germany is a vital article and HGAS about Inglourious Basterds? I never knew that this would actually hurt my chances seeing as I edit Artilces on German Subs and WWII.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 00:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree completely. We had a discussion about this (somewhere in the archives now), and I was hoping it might be instituted for this year. I think sticking to core articles for bonus points would be easy and drama-free, no? Sasata (talk) 01:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

My idea was for articles like the ones at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Core topics, and the ones at Wikipedia:Vital articles (not the expansions). I was thinking about core encyclopedic articles that often require a bit of work with scope and really trying to include and prioritise notable material. These often take a great deal of work. The more I think about Top Importance for any aprticular wikiproject the more I think it is too much of a headache to monitor. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Gonna be honest, I'm still not wild about that. The core topics seem a little overly general- I'd say a lot of those don't hold massive amounts of value. Some parts read more like a children's dictionary- measurement? Tradition? Tool? The list seems very abstract. How was it chosen? The vital articles seem a little better, but, again, I'm not wild about them- how were they chosen? There are some people on there I've never even heard of. J Milburn (talk) 10:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Another thought perhaps worth considering- the TFA requests page has the concept of "basic subject matter", defined as "Topics considered to be basic subject matter for a twelve-year-old using Wikipedia for a school project." I admit, this would preclude a lot of important topics (I can't see much if anying in philosophy meeting this threshold...) but it's another criterium worth consideration, perhaps? J Milburn (talk) 11:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe use the list on meta? At the beginning of the year, take the latest release (version 1.2 now) and use that for the cup that year! The list is similar to the Vital Articles. Djacku (talk) 16:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The Cup went through a similar discussion last year. It's not a good idea to change the rules while the competition is ongoing and the idea is gameable: anybody can reassess articles within a project and the distinction between importance categories is not clear cut. Version 1.0 or 1.2 core topics can be so broad as to be nearly unworkable. Clothing is that sort of core topic. The FA at cochineal fares better despite mid-importance to the textile arts because it covers a more focused scope. Durova⁴¹² 18:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Valid points. The rules are not going to be changed mid-competition, this is all discussion for next year's contest. J Milburn (talk) 18:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

How about the following parameters then?

Okay, I have been thinking about this and do see the issues with the vital and core articles, yet I do see the headaches over possible gaming and also funny broad topics like history etc.

How about the any/some/all of the following for next year:

A double point bonus/multiplier for articles in the following categories (which hopefully can't be gamed):

• Any sovereign state (i.e country)
• Any capital city of a country
• Any ocean
• Any continent
• Any element (there are over a hundred of them - I think it would be a great milestone to get all featured)
• Any food item (has to be a type of food like pork, barley, rice, corn etc. - cannot be a brand of item like twinkies, cornflakes etc.)
• Any past or present head of state of a country (prime minister, monarch etc. Also includes pontiffs)
• Any group of organism of class level or higher (we have a stack of GAs/FAs on species, but precious few on the bigger groups)

I'd figure the above cats are pretty unambiguous and core encyclopedic material - how do others feel? Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Consider the fungal class Wallemiomycetes, which is monospecific, and will probably not take any more work than a regular species GA; there are several fungal classes like this and I'm sure similar examples in other Kingdoms. Also, consider Lichen, which doesn't even qualify as a discrete taxonomic unit, but will take about as much effort as Fungus did to take it to FA. But I like the idea in general and hope that some type of bonus is workable for next year. Sasata (talk) 16:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

This idea has some merit. I disagree about the food item (take a look at User:ChildofMidnight/Bacon Challenge 2010 for the number of strange little bacon-themed foods that grace DYK frequently) but the geographic and scientific ideas are good. Of course, the problem with this is that it misses a lot of things that it should be hitting- if people are getting bonus points for scratching together a GA on a minor capital city, should people not also be getting bonus points for major philosophers? (Sorry, I know this is always my example...) There would be no way to include major philosophers on the list, as there is no objective measure of what constitutes a "major" philosopher, but there is an objective way to judge capital cities. J Milburn (talk) 17:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

It is interesting trying to think of parameters, I added food as food is woefully underrepresented. Question is, are there other parameters that can make it general and not esoteric...classes of food? whole food components? Not sure. Food which has been around since antiquity? Dunno. We could modify "Any group of organism of class level or higher" to include unranked clades, which is how we can include lichen, vertebrates and flowering plants, to name three.

How about "Any Nobel Prize Winner", that is unambiguous (?) Philosophy is hard. Need to think. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

And "Any musical instrument or class of instruments in a classical orchestra" ? Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

How about any World Heritage Site? These are a stack of globally important sites - easy and unfudgeable. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

One possible multiplier (that would at least for FA and FL) is to give bonuses for articles within underrepresented topics (like it is done now for wp:TFAR). Nergaal (talk) 05:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmm..interesting thought, but anything less than a concrete/ironclad criterion could be problematic....Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

You get the points in kilo-Viewers in November of the previous year as bonus. For Periodic table it would be 306 for Barack Obama it would be 682 points for Friedrich Nietzsche it would be 181 for Botswana it would be 67 and so on .... --Stone (talk) 06:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)